Thank you, RO. that is helpful. When you say Page 11, you are actually referring to the points under #53 which states this:

53. The Jehovah’s Witness Defendants were negligent and/or reckless including but not limited to, inter alia, the following:

And, the points that you are speaking about - Points F and G - are two points in a list of 19 areas that are highlighted, that Fessler is claiming that the JWs/WT are deficient on in providing an adequate level of care to a minor.

This is the entire list of all the points presented under #53 (because...you know...context is critical when examining "points")

a. negligently failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow adequate policies and procedures as defined in this complaint for the protection and reasonable supervision of children against adult congregants with known dangerous propensities;

b. failing to implement and comply with such procedures which had been adopted;

c. negligently failing to train members so as to protect children against sexual abuse

d. failing to train officers within the organization in the need to develop adequate policies for the safety of children including the implementation for clear and strictguidelines for interactions between congregants;

e.failing to discourage harmful and inappropriate contact between members and participants, particularly between Terry Jeanne Monheim and the minor plaintiff;

f.failing to limit one-to-one interactions between adult congregants and minors;

g.failing to ban or restrict overnight activities between congregants and minors

h.failing to develop and enforce "out of program" contact restrictions betweencongregants and minor participants, including plaintiff;

i.failing to develop policies and procedures for the reporting of inappropriatesexual conduct within the organization;

j.failing to develop policies and procedures for the mandatory reporting of suspected abuse of children discovered by these defendants;

l.failing to implement, enforce and/or follow adequate protective and supervisorymeasures for the protection of children including the "Two Deep Rule" or "TwoAdult Rule" as is followed in the Boy Scouts of America, religious organizationsand other organizations;

m.negligently failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow policies and procedures asdefined in this complaint to protect minors against harmful contacts by some of itsmembers, including defendant Monheim;

n.negligently failing to provide plaintiffs with any assistance in coping with theinjuries sustained after having placed plaintiff in a position of peril

o.Breaching the duties imposed by Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 321, as adopted in Pennsylvania, by creating a risk of harm to children through failing to adopt adequate policies and procedures for the protection of children for the reasons stated herein and then failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent against that risk;

p.Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 319 by failing to exercise reasonable care of Terry Jeanne Monheim, a person whom these defendants know or should know to be likely to cause bodily harm to others if not controlled;

q.failing to adopt, implement and/or enforce policies and procedures for the reporting to law enforcement authorities and/or other authorities of harmful acts to children as required by Pennsylvania law as outlined in this complaint;

So, RO, out of that lengthy, 19 point list, you have selected these two points to present as the critical points of difference:

f. failing to limit one-to-one interactions between adult congregants and minors;g.failing to ban or restrict overnight activities between congregants and minors

Richard, you had said this about what Fessler had set out in this case (and the 19 point list I have posted are just a tiny tip of the complaint list - the list was just one point - #53 of 64 total):

What the complaint set out in this case was pretty ridiculous in my opinion. In the complaint it talks about how Watchtower should prevent all interaction between any adult and child. Should monitor all activities of congregation members and so forth.

Richard, you are the ridiculous one. Ridiculous way over the top and beyond. You pull out two tiny little points in a lengthy list of points and then use those two points (totally out of context) to label the complaint as ridiculous.

Come closer so that I can slap you for being so ridiculous and stupid.

Your Watchtower is showing big time, Richard. Go back to the Tower - they need you. They have to get ready for the ARC coming up in a few weeks - you will be valuable to them there - you will fit right in with all the rest of the stupid WT lawyers

"You are wrong. Your reading comprehension needs a bit of work. The complaint does not say that the WT should prevent all interaction between any adult and child.

You need to check your hyperbole at the door, Richard."

OrphanCrow, your response to RO is superb.

RO consistently feels the need to provide a view that is pro-JW organization - which is fine - this forum welcomes differing views, after all this is not JW.org.

However, in beefing up his pro-JW view, RO resorts to hyperbole and a highly selective approach with the facts. There are occasional indications that RO "gets" that entrenched failures in response to child sexual abuse allegations in JW organization have occurred - but these indications are short-lived because, in his replies, he selects answers that support a more sympathetic view of JW organization; to do this he needs to conveniently leaves out the more damning information.

I suspect that when RO appears to "get" the egregious nature of JW organization's responses to child sexual abuse, it is a way to then infiltrate into his longer answer another pro-JW organization comment.

RO: "failing to limit one-on-one interactions between adults and minors."How can a religion or anyone other than parents limit the interactions that their children have. And how can anyone force another adult to limit their interactions with others. I know I know, people here will say, Watchtower does it all the time when they tell people not to communicate with DF'd people. But in reality if people want to communicate with someone else there is very little that Watchtower can do about it, both legally and practically. If someone wants to associate with someone else no organization can stop them. There are laws that can stop people from associating or coming within a certain distance of a person or class of person but a religion doesn't have that ability."failing to ban or restrict overnight activities between congregants and minors"Here again, I am not blaming the parents, but how can Watchtower or anyone know what another person is doing at night in their private home. It is up to parents to know where their children are especially at night. No one can monitor people 24 hours a day and know who they are with and what they are doing at all the times.

If the Boys Scouts can do it, surely to gawd Jehovah's organization should be able to, seeing as how perfect they are and all of that...

Policies that have been put in place like institutions like the Boys Scouts have been welcomed by the adult leaders themselves - the policies protect the children as well as protect the adults from false accusations or from unintentionally doing harm to a victim.

You should read the policy you are using as an example. Those policies only apply during official activities of the Boy Scouts. Nowhere in the complaint was there any accusation that the abuse took place during any official activities.

When you activity work with youth it really makes no difference where you are located because most times you just have a passion to see them succeed. These kids are as important to me as my own 2 children.

Richard: You should read the policy you are using as an example. Those policies only apply during official activities of the Boy Scouts. Nowhere in the complaint was there any accusation that the abuse took place during any official activities.

I have read the policy. All of it. And other organization's policies as well.

There are a couple points you are missing.

Firstly, these policies exist and they have been designed to protect the victims (and that includes victims of unjust accusations). The Watchtower has nothing comparable. Nothing. They haven't even tried to put policies in place that are victim centered.

Secondly, tell me what activities that a Jehovah's Witness does that aren't regulated by the Watchtower. All of their movements (and thoughts) outside of WT approved activities are monitored and disciplined. If that was the case that the WT has no control over things that a JW does outside of KH activities, etc, then the WT has no business disfellowshipping people for taking blood or lighting up a cigarette.

what activities that Jehovah's Witness does that aren't regulated by the Watchtower. All
of their movements (and thoughts) outside of WT approved activities are
monitored and disciplined. If that was the case that the WT has no
control over things that a JW does outside of KH activities, etc, then
the WT has no business disfellowshipping people for taking blood or
lighting up a cigarette

Yes Orphan Crow, that's the main problem with cults that Richard so eagerly wants to defend. They control the minds and every aspect of the life of their members, and then, when legal responsibility needs to be assessed, they argue to be an entirely separate party and have nothing to do with the problems of their members.

You may feel that Watchtower controls all aspects of their members lives, and that is your right to feel that way. But that is not how the law views it. officially sponsored events would include meetings, field service, bible studies, shepherding calls, construction projects, assemblies and conventions. It would also apply if the activity happened on Watchtower or Congregation property. There is also a theory on many states of master and agent relationship, where a master can be held responsible to the damages caused by their agent if the agent was acting in the interest of the master.

Let's take the example of the boy scouts. Those policies don't apply if a scout master wants to take out one of the boys to get ice cream and then does something to the boy. The perpetrator is the one responsible for the action that occurred not the boyscouts.